caldrail

Historically there have always been women who went to war. Boudicca is an exception in that she did so openly, she was after all the leader of the revolt. Women have consistently, in very small numbers, disguised themselves as boys and shouldered their burden. Funny thing is, there's very little information on what happened when they got found out (and interestingly, very few did). The effectiveness of some of these women in combat is notable. I remember a female native american who became renowned for her skill as a warrior. There was a female samurai for instance whose skills were legendary. Notice that in her case the adoption of a sword as the major weapon that required speed and skill rather than brute strength is the factor that allowed her to function en par with the men. The same effect occurs with firearms (but not, according to the US military, with grenades!). In theory, bows or slings might also allow the same equality, provided the draw strength wasn't too heavy. The restrictions of the roman army have been mentioned above. Physical strength was desired and deliberately improved by training. Indeed, the physical requirements of the roman military were every bit as tough as modern armies - but with one important exception - they weren't expected to shoulder huge loads in battle. Instead, that strength and endurance was to come to the for in hand to hand combat with swords and shield. In roman legions, the recruits were given a medical examination, and I cannot believe a roman medic wouldn't notice the effiminacy of this recruit. Assuming he didn't, and could convince the recruitment officer that her upbringing was from a suitably physical background, then we reach the next problem. The roman equivalent of the quartermaster stores, where the recruit gets outfitted for her tunic and armour etc. One wonders what would happen when sublagaria were handed over.... Then again, roman soldiers got almost no privacy. They were billeted in eight man groups (conteburnium) in cramped spaces, that later during service might also have slaves and servants in there too. Having got to this point, there is a remote chance that the woman might persuade her group members to protect her secret (that doesn't automatically mean sex, it might be she was lucky to be amongst soldiers of a more generous nature) Thats ok until the centurion (or any other soldier of rank) spots that a conteburnium is 'carrying' or 'protecting' one of their members. He would want to know why and may well focus his attention on getting that soldier up to speed or even out the door as a failure. Certainly a woman amongst the men would be regarded as a morale disaster and very undesirable. As an aside, its recorded that one wife of a legionary commander pestered her husband to allow her to drill the men. This caused much hilarity and derision, and I suspect, killed the mans career thereafter! All in all, it would have been quite an achievement for a woman to survive as a legionary. But we'll never know if it actually happened.

I'm sorry sir, but driving on the right simply isn't british...

The stirrup was not used in europe during roman times. Archaeological evidence shows they were introduced from the east around the 7th century AD. Roman saddles used four prongs between which the rider secured himself with his thighs. Whilst this sounds uncomfortable and even impractical, it was used successfully for centuries and re-enactors demonstrate this form of saddle. The romans did not charge at the enemy in the way you might imagine. Charges against other cavalry units took place because both units used open order, in order to pass each other without risk of collison. Since horses will refuse point blank to barge into something they interpret as a solid barrier, cavalry charges against tightly pack infantry either stopped short or swerved past the edges. Loose infantry units were vulnerable to cavalry charge. In any event, roman cavalry were used in a light role. That is, engaging opposing cavalry, scouting, harassing, and pursuing. There are records of roman cavalrymen refusing to charge infantry. A typical attack was to ride past, throwing spears, then wheeling about for another pass. In general, the first thing the roman cavalry would have done is secure the flanks of the battlefield to ensure enemy horses were not a threat, then possibly begin an outflanking attack at the sides or rear of the enemy. The introduction of heavily armoured horsemen in roman armies (Cataphractii or Clibanarii) began the evolution of a more direct style of charge, but this wasn't always a success and at least once the wiley enemy infantry opened its ranks, allowed the horses in, then pulled off the riders and despatched them without too much effort. The sort of mounted invulnerability we see in medieval knights was a long time coming. I'm no expert on sizes but roman horses were indeed smaller than todays. They were looking ideally for mares, tractable, agile, and quick.

Neanderthals are known to have a larger brain volume, a characteristic that may well have developed from having to live in a harsh enviroment. However, its also believed that neanderthals moved around in small family groups. This is an important point. They lived a semi-nomadic life constantly searching for resources or latching on to herds for that purpose, and there's no evidence that neanderthals developed any larger scale social gatherings, though its entirely possible they did for information and social matters such mating etc. However, since they ranged over considerable territory, we cannot assume that. Now the whole point of this is that their need to communicate is focused on day to day matters. In fact, since they moved in small family groups, they had little time to else but focus on survival. Thats the problem with survival - its a tough business and requires your full attention, which is one reason why human beings stick together. As far as I'm aware (and I'm perfectly happy to be put straight on this), the cro-magnons moved in larger tribal groups and possibly had more permanent settlements? If so, their society would have developed to a more sophisticated degree and therefore so would their language, in order to deal with interaction amongst a larger and more diverse group, who would have had more time to be sophisticated since co-operative effort in survival is easier. The thing is, nature eventually discards anything that isn't worthwhile. If you live in a darkened cave, your eyesight will wither. If you live in water, your limbs wither. If you live in zero-g, your muscles and bones wither. Language is no different. If you don't communicate, you forget how to (or become very bad at it). The neanderthals needed to concern themselves with survival first and foremost, although I must admit I have seen one newspaper report (a dubious source I know) that reckoned the neanderthals did indeed have a spiritual life as well as subsistence hunting and gathering. Here's the problem. The neanderthals did not leave traces of their culture. Their crude huts have not lasted - there are traces of camp-sites undersea near the coast but I'm not sure whether these were actually neanderthal or thier successors.

Swindon is mentioned in the Domesday Book after William the Conqueror landed and conquered in 1066 with his Norman buddies, descendants of vikings from france. Swindon (the name means 'pig hill') was divided into five diocese, one of which was given to Bishop Odo, half-brother to William himself. Swindon wasn't the center of the universe (it still isn't) and remained an isolated town with only four roads in and out, these having toll gates when liquor smuggling became Swindons growth industry in the rambuctuous 18th century. The old town on the hill has long had rumours of tunnels for smugglers to transfer barrels of rum and ineed, some of these have been found in building restorations in recent years. The Bell Inn in old town was once a coach stop and dates from the 16th century. Trading Estate - an area of buildings built for business/commercial use, either as offices, warehouses, or small industries. Allotment gardens - Areas of land allocated to interested indivuals for growing vegetables. Much less popular now than in previous decades, and when I was young, there were several areas where these gardens had long been abandoned. Housing Estate - New housing developments. Although not intended for the rich, its often difficult to afford the prices of these buildings, and many are deliberately targeted at affluent middle class families. There's been a recent move toward affordable housing for first time buyers... Yeah right. Cycle track - a route set aside for bicycles (available for pedestrians and horse riders too, but no motorised transport). Old railways are popular for this and the M&SWJR can be followed all the way south to Marlborough, plus the route is being extended to Cricklade in the north so I hear. Goods Station - A railroad depot where passengers services don't call. They used to stop at Rushey Platt Junction when the M&SWJR first crossed the GWR mainline, but there wasn't enough traffic to justify it. To be honest, there wasn't enough goods traffic for the four platforms either. Okus - Not sure where the name comes from, though one suspects it has a latinised origin. I can state quite categorically that it has nothing to do with hollywood musicals. Actually, Okus was the site of Swindons gallows during the brief period in the 18th century when we had our own (criminals were usually sent to Devizes for execution), and the was once an infirmary there too, now the site of a school threatened with closure. A quarry, now mostly filled in, is adjacent to the school and is used as their sports ground - it is actually a flattened grassy area now, with a small corner left to show where the rock face once was.

He got that absolutely right. Swindon is like an old woman who dresses in the latest fashions and goes nightclubbing to attract the young men.

This is a little suspect. Neanderthals weren't stupid, despite their heavy browed appearance, and were well aware that if they travelled south the temperature got better, and they didn't originate in the north, nor was the change in weather that abrupt, nor was sewing a prerequisite for survival. Neatly sewed warm clothes were an advantage certainly, but surely neanderthals were well used to the cold weather to devise some way of strapping crude hides on their person, which would have done the same job. It must also be remembered that they didn't live in the coldest regions of ice-age europe, but preferred the areas they could find food, which meant animal herds as well as nuts and berries, so they were definitely living in regions within the habitable sphere of the ice-age cold (and very cold it must have been). Humans, neanderthal or not, are adapatable creatures and survive in some very extreme climates today, plus the neanderthals were physically adapted for life in cold regions anyway. My own suspicion is that they were too rarified as a people, that they were too prone to the illnesses that cro-magnons brought with their wolves/dogs, and that possibly many were caught out by changes in animal migrations and numbers. Effectively, they lost the competition for survival despite their best efforts. One of the last outposts of neanderthals was Portugal, where studies have suggested that the last survivors went off to the nearest cro-magnon camp and asked to live with them - there are both remains on-site and no evidence of conflict. The cro-magnons were probably more aggressive as well as better equipped, and perhaps better communicators?

This is interesting, because traditionally a roman soldier who breaks ranks like this without orders is liable for execution. This was certainly true in the mid-republican period.

Gaah! No way! First of all Rushey Platt is an independent peanut republic, not a mere shire. Secondly, its a rainforest in Darkest Wiltshire, not a ford, and thirdly, it in no way resembles a borough. The proper english name for Rushey Platt is... well... Rushey Platt. Actually, to be strictly accurate, Rushey Platt was once a county parish (and a village?) down the hill from a small market town called Swindon in days of yore. Rushey refers to the natural marshland that once dominated the area, and there's still a small corner of it left as a nature reserve down by the Wilts & Berks canal. The site of Ladds Mill is now a pub. Much of the area was owned by Rushey Platt farm, whose cottage still stands in the corner of a small scrapyard at the back of a garage in a trading estate, on the site of the sawmill that traded lumber up until the 1970's. Allotment gardens and a ghastly new housing estate have filled the rmaining land. The Great Western mainline from London to Bristol is still in use, but the line that crossed over it, the Midland & South West Junction Railway, has long since disappeared and partly converted to a cycle track. The junction between the lines was right next to Rushey Platt Farm and the remains of the old goods station there are still visible. The escarpment of Okus is just across the canal to the northeast, where there was once a roman farmstead. Any questions?

The tv weather warning was very clear. Rainclouds moving into cold air right over Rushey Platt. Snow! Now since England is the one country in the world totally unable to cope with this phenomenon I decided to take precautions against inclement weather. Pointless. As usual, the snow avoided Rushey Platt like the plague. This always seems to happen. Some years ago the whole country was inundated with snowdrifts up to 6' deep - but not Rushey Platt, blissfully clear of anything remotely resembling a snowflake. It never snows in the rainforests of Darkest Wiltshire! Yesterday was Back To Work Day. Its that one day of the year that no-one ever discusses. Even better, it was Visit From The Auditor Day too. The young gentleman turned up in a suit that was probably fashionable two hundred years ago, looking very conspicuous in a warehouse enviroment. Needless to say, our rapid enforced move from The Hangar was the root cause of considerable embarrasement... On the way home today I got a toot from UT, driving past in his faithful flatbed van. Nice to see you're still out there UT, but where's Lord H? Surely he's not still ferreting? Also, walking along a footpath behind a car factory, I spot the working of our local scrap dealer. A long line of american style railroad gondolas waiting to be picked up with their loads of scrap metal, plus a passing Vauxhall Cresta (one of those 50's/60's cars designed to emulate american styling) conjured up an image of US railroading. The engine driver ambling along the tracks had a lumberjack coat too, and the image was perfect. Shame it was grotty old england really... Damp Squib Of The Year Oh all right I admit it. This years festive season was a washout. I think that we must learn from our mistakes and move on. Put it all behind us. So lets get back down the pub, drown our sorrows with quality booze, and... Oh good grief don't tell me our beloved Prime Minister is banning that too? He's already banned car accidents, smoking, and eating in an effort to reduce hospital waiting lists. Or are we now going to be refused hospital treatment for broken ribs caused by laughter? New Years Resolutions I hereby pledge not to waste any time making stupid resolutions about behaviour I've no intention of changing even if my nether regions were threatened with small furry mammals under duress. However, I can be bribed, and for a pint of cider, a bag of wine gums, I might be tempted to make an exception. For one silver Ferrari 360 Modena, low mileage, one careful owner, I'm anybody's. Now that is a resolution!

Ok, but so much of that wealth was spent on luxury, bribery, patronage gifts and favours, and public entertainment - arguably a waste of these resources. To some extent the luxury market should mean the economy is bouyed up and opens new markets for artisans and merchants etc, and so it did, but so much of this cash found its way abroad to pay for foreign curiosities, silk, spices, animals, etc. The animal trade for the arena was gathering pace in the late republic and this alone became an extraordinary drain on the roman economy. Rome may have become wealthy, but it was a leaking ship.

The reason it isn't always mentioned is that this elongated melee rarely occurs. One side or the other will usually break and run long before any appreciable casualties mount up, and 'last stands' are unusual and circumstantial in warfare. Traditionally a unit is finished as a fighting force before they reach 30% casualties, and once casualties mount, the morale collapse speeds up very quickly. Regarding sources, there's actually quite a lot of anecdotal evidence for how the romans (and some of their enemies) conducted themselves on the battlefield, its just that its inconveniently spread across a whole plethora of sources. Often though a story of a battle can reveal how things were even if the author never intended to discuss that directly. I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions, just try to make the piece fit the jigsaw, not the imagination (as if I don't get accused of that!

Good question. I haven't a clue what they did and I suspect it wasn't something considered polite to discuss openly in roman society, so I'd be suprised if there's any written source on this - but perhaps someone can prove me wrong?

These days in Blighty you get nailed for driving. The government want our cash and have invented lots of insidiuous ways to catch us doing what we're licensed to do. Seems a strange though that I offer advice to an american driver to speed up...

The punishment of grunts is very necessary in roman eyes. To fail is to show lack of commitment. This is an extension of their modernesque training and drill. If you do something wrong, you get someone shouting at you, and its peeling potatoes, running round the drill square, or doing it all over again until you get it right. In terms of losing a battle, it carries with it connotations of cowardice or incompetence, a failure to fight at you best, and even though the commader may actually be at fault he cannot be singled out for punishment. Everyone failed, hence all must bear the shame and guilt.

The gaps in the roman formations were there to allow units to move and reform without conflicting with each other. In practice, its unlikely that many celts would have reached the rear of the line. The warrior ethos of such barbarians was all about heroic one on one hack'n'slash. Confronted with a roman army, the braver ones shouted louder and charged first, followed by the rest, all of whom would have ran at the romans, not past them. In fact, I can't see any positive benefit to attempting to penetrate since this was inevitably going to involve smaller numbers whose sides and rears may have quickly become unsupported. It was fairly suicidal to try it I think and even though a keyed up swordsman might not have been thinking too clearly, it remains far more likely he'd attack those within easy reach - the front rank of romans. Romans preferred to present a solid barrier to the enemy, a shield wall, easy to achieve with those large oblong shields in close order, with enough gap to present a sword thrust between. They did employ an open order too, when a looser style of swordplay was judged better, or perhaps when avoiding casualties from missiles, but certainly never when enemy cavalry were in the area. Loose infantry formations are easy to break by cavalry charges, tight formations much less so and often next to impossible depending on circumstance. Shock effect of a marching body of men is achieved with close order. Open order is less self supporting and although the formation is more useful in say.. fighting in urban areas perhaps, where tightly organised groups rapidly become disordered and disorganised, the romans had much reason to retain a close order. There is a possibility that pilum were thrown in open order for practical purposes, then the troops withdraw to close order again, but I'm not sure of the practicality of this and you may well want to consult re-enactors for their thoughts. When the two sides met, the amount of chaos and deformation on the line depends largely on circumstance. In many cases, the sturdy roman line remained tight with men rotating in to replace the casualties. There is a mention in Caesars works of casualties being pulled to the rear out of harms way (although medical treatment may well have been a long time coming), and we know the romans were extremely well drilled in formation manoevers of this sort. Once a roman unit begins to merge with an enemy the ability to react and command is far reduced, something the centurions must have been well aware of and something they wanted to avoid at all costs. For this reason, a withdraw and reform move is a possibility. In this situation, don't forget the enemy have been fighting too and are just as tired, so an immediate chase (unless they're winning and morale is very high) might not happen - they might actually be grateful for a chance to catch their breath and reform themselves. There are accounts during the civil wars of roman units doing this repeatedly between each other, then rushing in again no holds barred. Beware of assuming that there were standard tactics for every eventuality. Warfare doesn't work like this, and if you take a formulaic approach you will lose more often than not. Initiative and suprise tactics worked well during the ancient era and indeed, the succesful commanders were often the clever ones with a little lateral thinking behind them, the ones who fought dirty, or who outsmarted their opposing commander. It really is astonishing just how this one man could shape the battle and despite any relative advantages in men and equipment, could still win the day.

Christianity, for all its positive effects, was not a moral reform by romans. far from it, it was more like a marketing exercise by Paul. Modern research has shown some extraordinary parallels with older faiths and its likely that Paul, who never met Jesus and only knew of him by story, added foreign mythology in order to make his cause popular and sell it. The early bishops of Rome weren't averse to taking money from their parishioners either (nothing new there then) and one 4th century roman wrote "Make me a Bishop of Rome and I'll be a christian tomorrow". Its easy to accuse the eastern religions of immorality and there were examples of such, including one whose priestess's were prostitutes pure and simple. Elagabulus is noteworthy for the emperor of the same name. However, there were also semitic/syrian cults with a much more moralistic worship and lifestyle, albeit a bit more relaxed that christianity has been in the past. In that at least, I agree with you!

The focus on luxury items refers to those with wealth in their pockets, which means a smaller part of roman society. The poor were just as poor despite the burdgeoning economy. They may have had more free time, but did they indulge in art, crafts, and philosophy? I hardly think so. They preferred to remain idle, to gamble, and probably get drunk too although Mommsen doesn't mention that. Also, their way of life was changing. In earlier times it was a custom to have one hot meal a day, as already outlined. Now whereas the increasing tendency for another hot meal during the late republic isn't going to bring the roman world to its knees (thats not what I was suggesting at all, neither does Mommsen, and I do notice a tendency for some people to extrapolate on what I've written to ridiculous lengths). What it does indicate, amongst other factors, is that the restraint of people in earlier times is being discarded. Slavery can account for some of that, but not all. The increase in slavery is also a little illusory. Although there were high points in the slave trade as mentioned, there was always a decline in slave trading after those events bringing in masses. Delos went out of business for instance, despite selling ten thousand or so in a single day in its heyday. Also, the majority of slaves went out on bulk sales and apart from those destined for short term careers in entertainment, a lot of these would have been rural labourers in farms, mills, quarries, and mines whose lifespans weren't likely to be much longer. As for common people, the cost of a slave is probably a bit much. Mommsen does actually indicate that the purchase price of a boy was something close to a barrel of anchovies. Thats a lot of fish for a poor man, many of whom were itinerant labourers ousted from unsuccesful farms and only working long enough to pay for what they needed, which as I mentioned, wouldn't include art, craftwork, or books on philosophy. What Mommsen is suggesting therefore is that the old work ethic was fading away. The wealthy were beginning to buy support for political success by staging entertainments and since these were free, the public were always going to demand more. I'm not sure that slavery as such is automatically resulting in increasing moral decay. After all, under the christianised Rome manumission was increasingly popular to those able to provide it. Now there may be a lot of self interest involved, since this act of freeing a slave allowed the owner to appear a generous man, and also that the former slave often retained his loyalty to his former master as a client under patronage. Nonetheless, in later times the numbers of slaves allowed to be freed in wills were restricted by law. Also, all ancient societies kept slaves to a greater or lesser degree. It wasn't unusual, and no-one at the time thought anything terrible about the fact slavery existed. There were abuses of course, since any market for commodities rears those who want to exploit it without restraint. By the early Principate the rural slave barracks had to be investigated for enslaving travellers illegally, and 'draft-dodgers' were known to hide there pretending to be slaves and therefore not liable for military service. Certainly beats cutting your own thumb off. Therefore the moral decay isn't about the increasing use of slaves, partly because slavery was not ever-increasing. You see, with any society you have a certain proportion of people who want to push the boundaries of behaviour, either for profit or for their own satisfaction. Thats why socieities have laws, to restrain the behaviour of their members to an acceptable level. Notice that by the late republic the senate were making new laws for this very reason and its the common people who increasingly cock a snook at it. The senate lost some credibility by issuing inept laws in the first place, and given they were often too busy competing amongst themselves to be concerned with public behaviour, it became easier to buy the public off with 'bread and circuses' than to enforce restraint. Once a large group of people lose that sense of self discipline and standards of behaviour, it becomes very difficult to reassert them. As for 'architects of Empire', that to me is nonsense. There were no architects of empire, it wasn't a planned development of roman culture. The empire was well in place before the end of the republic (if you understand what I mean), and as for allowing the roman public to think they were free, thats not even close to the situation. The roman authorities weren't that able to control the public, or bread and circuses wouldn't have been necessary or desirable, nor would Cato have felt it necessary to issue anti-sumptuary laws etc etc. Tyranny? Thats down to individual leaders, not wealth. I really don't remember suggesting tyranny was involved. Also, one of the problems of a strong and growing economy is that it allows people to strive for luxury, which as I mentioned, can be a distraction in life. Its the major cause of the work ethic being discarded after all, and once the owrk ethic goes, then the economy begins to stagnate. The 'strong and growing' economy stagnated after all. Imperial wealth boosted it to a considerable degree but over a long period of time this growth was not sustainable, one of the reasons why the west declined. Mommsen listed what he saw as the decline in standards and manners, not the effects of trade and finance.

The police did turn up once obviously hoping to cart me away for 'making it all up'. Funny thing is, how come a car can suffer stonechips in exactly the same place repeatedly when the rest of the car doesn't suffer? That a stone scrapes away a length of paint rather like a metal edge might? At any rate, I had a public disagreement with the two police officers over it and one of them got a right lecture from me over the phone. If it comes to that, how come a car can suddenly have a deeper chassis, a raised seating position, slower steering, almost no acceleration, much reduced grip etc etc... Somebody's been having fun at my expense, and I'm left with a dead car, beyond economic repair. What are the police going to do about that now I'm thousands of pounds out of pocket? Actually they smirk when they pass me on the street. Aren't the british police wonderful?

The program did suggest that Paul, who largely invented christianity, was drawing other beliefs for inspiration and in all probability better ratings. It begins to appear like an ancient marketing exercise.

What Mommsen saw is a civilisation with some high ideals that was losing its way. The introduction of new ideas might be cosmopolitan, but it can also destabilise a society at worst. One view is to assume that new ideas are a good thing - because without them a society can stagnate (something the republic has been accused of sometimes). The reason I posted this is because if you look askance at it, there's a wide parallel with our modern age. For us, the world wars were as delibatating as the Punic Wars were to the romans. We too saw an introduction of luxuries afterward (also due to increasing technology) and have been through a permissive change in society. The role of women has expanded to fill almost every male bastion for instance. We accept this because we're brought up within this enviroment. To our ancestors many of these changes might have been viewed with horror. Remember Enoch Powell warning us of the dangers of immigration? Mommsens viewpoint is from a time before these changes occured which is why I thought it interesting. Personally, I think Rome left its rustic latin roots much earlier than the empire. It remained as a fond folk memory well into later times, the scene of rustic tranquility and honest agricultural labour being very close to roman hearts even after they embraced urban sprawl. Everything the empire was going to become was already present in the late republic and the change was happening over the last two hundred years. The senate recognised these changes with some concern and attempted to hold it back, yet there seems a certain ineptness and lack of will in the senate's actions. They've been accused of being too concerned with their own affairs, engaged in their own tussles for popularity and career, until the point is reached where charismatic individuals are calling for support from the common people directly. Mommsen of course regarded the empire as a 'bad' thing, a degenerate form of government that shared nothing with the high ideals the romans had when they booted Tarquinus off his throne. He has a point, but then, if the rule of tradition breaks down as it did in the late republic, you approach a situation where the law of the jungle prevails, and in the increasing political anarchy the fittest pushed forward and achieved domination. Now since our idea of modern society, since we live in it, is nothing like as bad as Mommsens fears, one has to draw the parallel again and wonder if the romans too decided that the declining restraints on society weren't so bad after all. Idleness for instance means exactly what is does today, that people choose to be unemployed and obtain a living by other means, often at the cost of the state. Gambling brings all manner of social ills with it. Relgion can warp peoples perceptions and make them do some very anti-social things and still believe they are right to do them. The changing of eating habit? Not terrible in its own right, but an indication of a desire for luxury, a sign that the old discipline and manners of what may seem to a golden age is falling away. Sounds familiar?

Thanks GO. Without you, the space alien plot would have suckered me in. Now I'm prepared. Interesting that you mention black helicopters because we often see one over Rushey Platt. No, seriously. After all the fuss I made to the police about my car they even hovered over me once when I was out the back cleaning it. Ye gods!!! Was I abducted? Am I blissfully unaware of being prodded with cold metal rods and sex with green alien bimbo's? Must destroy..... Woah, what happened there?....

Some of you might have seen Thunderbirds, that wonderful 60's puppet series by Gerry Andersen. Every episode some daring engineering achievement goes horribly wrong, and our square jawed lads from a pacific island rush into action with their futuristic machinery to rescue everyone from the explosions guaranteed in the final moments. Well then. Sit back, switch the TV on, and watch as the Warehouse bring in our new office. As forklifts go, this one is pretty big. It dwarfs the cabin resting on its forks as it edges slowly in through the doors. Cue dramatic music - Oh no! They've broken a window! And the cabin is too small! Its all going horribly wrong!! So faster than Clint Eastwood in a gunfight, our man on the spot, AD, brings out his mobile phone. The message is picked up aboard the space station (where that strangely solitary man sits there listening to everyone speaking on the airwaves just in case there's a chance for another episode), and another message beamed to International Portakabins. Cue Portakabins Theme Tune. Workers descend through the floor of their rest areas, others slide down chutes behind the office walls, and trees bend over as the supersonic articulated truck trundles toward the main road, carrying a plush cabin of monstrous size for those lads in peril in Rushey Platt. Stay tuned for the finale. Can International Portakabins insert the new office before AD blows his top? Civic Renewal of the Week I passed the Old Collectibles Shop a couple of days ago. In the window is a new display, showing how the Wilts & Berks Canal is to be restored. Built during the Industrial Revolution just before Mr Brunel and his railway navvies turned up in the 1840's, the course of the old canal is now part of a major road system through the town. So, in an effort to beautify the place and provide somewhere to deposit late night drunks and shopping trolleys, not to mention providing an excellent excuse to restrict car traffic in the town centre, the authorities are going to rip up the roads and put a canal back in place. The smart money is on owning an amphibious car. Or can we trust our sat-navs?

There was a tv program over christmas about Jesus, which noted many similarities between christianity and mithraism, even to the extent that later roman christians complained that the mithras worshippers were copying them. A point I hadn't previously known was that Mithras wasn't the god in charge of his faith, more of a lesser divinty sent to deal with mankind much as Jesus was said to. Does anyone have any further info about this?